If Obama didn't wiretap Trump (and I don't believe for a minute that he did),

[raccoon]

could he sue Trump for slander?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Probably not.

One problem is that Obama is a public figure, and as such he has a higher burden of proof: He would have to prove that the false statement was made with the knowledge it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. (New York Times v. Sullivan). It's pretty easy to argue that Trump knew the claim was false or that at best he recklessly disregarded the truth, because he got the "information" from Breitbart and obviously made no attempt to verify it. The bigger problem is that presidents are generally immune from civil suits related to actions they took as part of their official duties. (Nixon v. Fitzgerald)

[unblock]

2. the simpler problem is what are the damages?

is obama going to claim a loss of income? how do you show that any loss of income is due directly to donnie's slander?

is obama going to claim emotional distress? really? is a jury really going to decide that obama could deal with eight+ years of people calling him all kinds of horrible things, wrong things, etc., but only the false accusation of wiretapping broke him?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. In some kinds of defamation cases damages are presumed.

At common law, cases of slander per se don't require proof of actual damages. These claims fall into four types: accusations of the commission of a crime; accusations that the slandered person has a "loathsome disease"; an accusation that the person is incompetent in his trade or profession; and a claim that the person is "unchaste." Since SCROTUS' claim is that Obama illegally wiretapped his phone, he accused him of a crime, which is slander per se, and damages would not have to be proved.

Still, it would be better for an investigation to prove it was a lie rather than litigate the issue, which probably couldn't happen anyhow because of Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

[unblock]

6. Interesting, thanks. Another problem, though,

Doesn't the accusation need to seem credible to damage a reputation?

Random internet crackpots accuse politician of crimes all the time, it's clearly all just speculation or amateur lawyering, presumably not slander/libel.

Is an accusation coming from a known chronic liar credible? Is it still slander/libel?

[Ccarmona]

3. And since Obama is a Public Figure

You'd have to prove malicious intent.
Course, The Hulkster broke Gawker with a Libel suit and Melania is suing the Daily Mail for $150 million.

[ananda]

5. I wish he would..

.. sue the socks off 45.